UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1705

EDDIE BRADFORD LEE; WILLIAM SANFORD GADD; KATHY CAROL MOORE,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

GRAHAM C. MULLEN; ROBERT D. POTTER; RICHARD L. VOORHEES; H. BRENT MCKNIGHT; CARL HORN, III; J. HARVIE WILKINSON, III; DONALD S. RUSSELL, JR.; H. EMORY WIDENER, JR.; K. HALL; FRANCIS D. MURNAGHAN, JR.; SAM J. ERVIN, III; WILLIAM WILKINS, JR.; PAUL V. NIEMEYER; CLYDE H. HAMILTON; J. MICHAEL LUTTIG; KAREN J. WILLIAMS; M. BLANE MICHAEL; DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ; JOHN D. BUTZNER; J. DICKSON PHILLIPS; ROBERT F. CHAPMAN; MARK T. CALLOWAY; JAMES M. SULLIVAN; CLIFFORD C. MARSHALL; LORETTA C. ARGRETT; JONATHAN S. COHEN; DONALD B. TOBIN; ELLEN M. GREGG; SEVERAL UNKNOWN STAFF ATTORNEYS; UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE COURT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-99-180-T-3)

Submitted: October 17, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.*

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Bradford Lee, William Sanford Gadd, Kathy Carol Moore, Appellants Pro Se. Joseph L. Brinkley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, John A. Dudeck, Jr., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wash- ington, D.C.; Frank Lane Williamson, Debbie Weston Harden, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

* The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to

(d) 1994).

2 PER CURIAM:

Eddie Bradford Lee, William Sanford Gadd, and Kathy Carol

Moore appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Lee v. Mullen, No. CA-99-

180-T-3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 1999). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3